Email Newsletter

Archives

How long before we see ‘illegal’ product design files to download? And what should we do about it?
New release movies are available for download from various file sharing networks before they even hit the cinemas. Despite DRM and any other copyright protection put into music files they are instantly and widely spread across the net for free download seemingly as soon as the recordings are complete. Software applications and games are exactly the same, years of development are quickly absorbed and distributed in peer to peer networks without a dollar changing hands.

We can assume the same is going to happen with physical product design in the not too distant future, as the digital design process becomes ubiquitous, and the means of manufacture become distributed and democratized.
What will we do when product design files start hitting these peer to peer networks of sharing. The equivalent of ripping a CD and burning it for a friend?

Or when a disgruntled Industrial Designer leaks the CAD files for the latest gizmo onto Demonoid or Pirate Bay, and suddenly anyone with access to a Makerbot can print one themselves?

Can or will Shapeways analyse a design and refuse to 3D print it if it is seen to infringe a design copyright, or have an encryption denoting it a pirate ‘illegal’ 3D file?

Will Marc Newson pull a Metallica and try and sue one of his fans if they 3D print one of his doorstoppers because it deprives him from income?
How long till we see the likes of Ikea hacks take on the form of musical mash-ups when two digital files are combined? Like Deiter Rams Radio vs Jonathan Ive’s iPod in a mutant device. Will we see The Grey Album with an Artist/designer taking claim (and responsibility/liability) for a product mash-up or will we see anonymous designers posting ‘white label’ designs so as to avoid prosecution.

Would or could Tatty Devine sue Ponoko if they sell a designers jewelry if it is a copy, that has been changed ever so slightly, and is this a form of illegal mass-customization?

I would love to hear any feedback to these questions, and what direction, action or acceptance we will take?

38 Responses to “Product Designs on Pirate Bay?”

Many interesting questions, this is why it’s important to diversify OFFLINE as well as ONLINE. Would I be happy if some of my designs ended-up on Pirate Bay? I honestly don’t know at this point but I know it’s a given that they eventually WILL.

You can buy my eps files online now, do I think there are some people making 10 copies of my work but only paying 1 license for it commercially? Absolutely! Is there anything I can do about it? Not really but I believe there are more honest people in this world than otherwise.

As things become increasing decentralized (100KGarages is only the beginning), the control over the files that make your work will be as lost as it is for the musicians, directors and publishers of this world.

Ponoko and others already have a clause regarding copyright, I’m hoping my designs are distinctive enough to be recognized, if not, karma’s a bitch.

The whole idea that you can make something once, then profit from it forever is kindof… counter to the laws of thermodynamics.

It’s not a question of “Is this good? Is this bad?”… it’s a question of whether it’s possible… to profit from “intellectual property” (a very 20th century construct) in an environment where production and distribution costs are zero.

The environment has changed. Simple as that… and corporate attempts to impose permanence of the old environment by using the power of the state is inevitably fascistic. The results will be fascistic results – and we’re seeing this already… the rollback of civil-liberties, privacy and the drift from “ownership” of an artifact to a type of rental (which is what DRM represents).

And having “intellectual property” at large, and free in the memosphere is free advertising. You just need to make sure that your advertising and your product aren’t the same thing.

The only problem with your way of thinking Nick is that I can’t tell HP that because I designed XYZ that it entitles me to a free laptop to keep doing my designs or the power company to give me free power or a laser cutting manufacturer to give me a 10K$ machine to design things with etc… make something and profit from it for the life of the person who made/designed it is fine with me on a sliding scale but to assume that this world, much less a designer, doesn’t have any financial obligations to continue to buy things like food etc doesn’t make much sense either.

There must be some middle ground somewhere, it just hasn’t been found yet in my opinion as either extreme isn’t fair for the world in general. My time has value to it and giving stuff away for free unless sponsored by something else from which I can derive some $$$ to buy things needed to make my life comfortable doesn’t make much sense.

Maybe we need to look at what muso’s are doing now.
sony BMG take a hit because their monopoly is being eroded by file sharing. The artists get less royalties from sales, so their primary revenue may turn to touring (the original primary revenue before ‘the music industry’), APRA/ACSA/whatever radio airplay royalties and income from use in movies/commercials/product placement.

At the same time ‘the long tail’ means more and more obscure artists can have a greater chance of being heard by niche audiences…

What are the parallels here for designers? Can we stage the equivalent of a world tour, or are we going to have to resort to busking for change?

I’d suggest we seriously scrap capitalism all together and society helps each and every person pursuit their dreams. If I need a computer to do something, it’s provided to me, if I’m hungry, I can go to the store and pick something up etc… but I don’t see this happening anytime soon so until then, I got to stick with an economy based on the capitalist model.

I keep hearing the “musicians will make money touring”, but if you’ve followed some bands on tour you know that it’s much easier said than done; and it is so often said without any knowledge of touring realities. Had people merely followed 16Volt on their recent tour and learned of all the extraordinary difficulties (including having the guy hired to drive the tour bus steal the thing right before the band is scheduled to leave) they might think twice before casually suggesting it’s the solution to every musician’s problems. It’s not.

The fact is, touring isn’t easy.

Additionally, musicians aren’t necessarily business people. They have to hire managers, accountants, and all the other support personal about which most people are clueless because most people don’t even know how to play an instrument well, let alone make a living with their skills.

And without a good business model we can expect fewer people trying to make it in the music business. As it is, many of them work day jobs, care for families and meet other demands on their time like everyone else, and then still have to find time to practice.

Oh yeah. They have to practice. Which takes time. And effort. Which none of the “we want everything for free” crowd seem to grok.

How many bands will give up before they reach the level of ability audiences now expect?

-

The one thing I value is Time. It’s worth more than money and can’t be “printed” when it runs out.

It takes Time to develop a skill. It takes time to create quality content using that skill. If no one will pay creators for the *irrecoverable* Time they put into their creations, we should all expect they’ll produce less.

I don’t file share because I care about the corporations or the musicians.

I refuse to download content not willingly distributed by the content creators because I’m selfish. I want good music. I want a life filled with good music. And I don’t have the Time or the skills to create it myself. Is 99 cents too much to ask for a song? Not in my lifetime.

That said, will I design a product – after nine years of full time undergraduate study and a monetary debt which won’t go away – and simply give it to people too lazy to develop their own skills and design their own product, but who – while working at the Branded Retail Establishment or in some Factory Making Branded Product for Corporations or some seemingly unrelated field that is, in some way, tied into a monetary system based on Capitalism – contemplate what’s the best way to get it for free because they “need” it?

No.

Intellectual property is an incentive. That it’s been corrupted by corporate interests does not make the basic idea bad or make those who expect some form of compensation for their efforts bad?

Let’s face it, if intellectual property is so bad and communal property so good, why are 99.9% of the movies on Pirate Bay products of capitalist systems incorporating intellectual property? Why are people downloading Metallica’s music to spite them(?) and not downloading free Chinese music?

Simple, because the system they claim to despise is the system that is responsible for the things they want.

I call it hypocrisy and an entitlement mindset; a simplistic world view where we’ll all suddenly be “sharing” all of our excellent creations. Maybe. Maybe when the majority of the one’s taking actually become creators and have something of value to give. Forgive me if I don’t expect to see that in my lifetime.

Thanks for your input CSven, I am glad this is being discussed. I was a muso for years and moved onto design because i spent more and more time organizing music and less time playing. It is hard to pay a mortgage with a bar rider..

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that people will always try to steal designs and offer them for free because they feel justified in doing it.
–
There is so much hype right now about the wonderfullishness of free things, and how everything should be free, and we should all live in happy wanna-be hippy harmony by giving everything we have designed or made away for free free free because it’s just an amazinglyicious thing to do and be to be free.
–
So of course if we prefer to be paid for our designs, then we become dirty rotten capitalists. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Happy Hippy Harmony – I mean, just look at me … But you see, some of us are actually doomed to live in capitalist societies, so we don’t have the luxury to offer our working hours for free, because we have to pay to eat and live.
–
But boys and girls are being told “you deserve it free” (or at least cheap), and so with the rise of generationE-for-entitlement, the little folkies like me get either ignored because our designs are not free or we get ripped off. All the while the big folkeroos who have the resources (and dodgy hiring practices) to offer things on-the-cheap thrive!
–
In short – yes in this day and age, someone WILL rip off your designs in any way they can. And as a result, companies like Ponoko and Shapeways will need to spend the time and money to stop them and prosecute them.
–
Blame Coca Cola and an Aero Bar.
-Whystler

Why? Why prosecute? Why is it up to Ponoko to police this? Who _cares_?

Would anyone have not produced a design if they had thought it could be easily copied? That is demonstrably false, because the designs are EPS files, hardly DRMable, and there are tonnes of them available.

If individuals are copying and printing, is that a loss? Is it an opportunity? Design subscriptions?

Should you only be concerned about large scale duplication?

Here’s what I think.

1) Designs are essentially software. DRM on software is a complete failure, so DRM on designs will also be a failure.
2) Ponoko cannot (nor should it) act as a design cop. It cannot be up to them to determine if the design is owned by the person making the request – that way lies madness. It’s like a printer manufacturer having to ensure that the text file you are printing isn’t a copy of a book you don’t have rights to. The RIAA and the MPAA keep trying to put equivalent protections on computers. Thankfully, they’ve failed so far.
3) Commercial violation is easily detected and easily handled through the existing patent system. You want to protect it, apply for a patent.

People can copy books, they can copy music and they can copy movies. As if by magic, books are still selling well, and movies and music are still having bumper years.

Interesting discussion and probably one of the few times in history a new business model has had the sentience to ask these questions up front.

One aspect I think is different when it comes to digital product design and manufacture is the probability of edits and improvements.

Movies, music and books tend to be consumed as-is (with the exception of remix culture but that’s a minority of use). I may download a song from iTunes but I’m not likely to edit or improve it. Copyright, DRM and proprietary technology are aimed at an all-or-nothing protection – you can consume the media or not based on licensing or permission.

Digital product design offers the opportunity to customise a design before producing your own copies. This raises the issue of collaboration and group improvement – both lend themselves to an open source or creative commons licensing scheme.

My question for the debate is: at what level of customisation of your design does a designer accept the user has created a new product, worthy of it’s own IP protection and is this likely to ever be enforceable?

was it not the LSD try before you buy line dealers used in the 60’s that software producers still use today? Can we learn from this?
How much did Radiohead make on their pay what you like album vs their standard royalties.
Sure they are a mega band with a mega following getting mega press and mega money in the bank so could afford the risk.

It’s the job of a corporation to MAKE MONEY, if you don’t need money because you are independently wealthy or enjoy eating squirrels you trapped living around your cardboard box… then I guess “free” is fine for you. Unluckily for me, this is not the case. I don’t believe in “evil corporations”, they are an entity whose focus is clear… but I do believe in people whose intentions are far less opaque.

I really wish there was a happy middle ground somewhere, but so far, I haven’t found it. I do offer some of my designs for free (!!!) but 95% of mine are not simply because the “freemium” way of thinking of things seems to only work when you have a HUGE build-up audience.

I design because I LOVE designing, money is secondary to me, and always has been, but that being said, my tools are not cheap nor is my living free of any costs.

I publish books of my designs, produce animations using very high-end software along with music etc… all time intensive so I believe I am “entitled” to get money back with interest from this for as long as I am alive.

Musicians (and by that I mean proper ones, who give their whole life to it) are musicians primarily for:

a) girls (or whatever) and
b) because they’re obsessed by music… and if they’re young,
c) because they have a young person’s sense of destiny.

This corporatist/copyright-cartelist line that musicians need to be motivated by money is a flat out lie.

–

And this I know because I was one, and all of the above – and THE most damaging thing… for all of us, was “industry” controlling access to audiences… with radio being the worst culprit, but record companies – particularly majors, being complicit and adding all sorts of barriers (and a type of class-system) of their own.

So now everyone is routing around them, and they’re all out wringing their hands, saying “ooh, what about the artists” when they didn’t give a flying fuck before, and exploited everyone to the hilt.

They can all go to the wall as far as I’m concerned. They deserve it… especially after their myriad attempts to roll-back civil-rights in favour of their no-longer-relevant business models.

–

Free information is an environmental condition… get used to it.

And… please bear in mind that (unless I’m much mistaken) the system you’re currently reading/writing in is written in PHP/MySQL and running on Apache/Linux… all of which are free, and written by people who created something without putting a big wall around it and charging other people to get in.

“Work once, get paid forever” is no longer a practicality… regardless of any morality, which is dubious at best.

@Jon
Actually, I think you should read up on “Design Patents”. In the US, you’re limited to 14 years. In the EU, if you don’t register, it’s 3 years. In the UK, it’s 10.
-
Not only that, it’s only protected in locations what you apply for the design patent.
-
So, in no situation will a single design set you up for life…

@Nick, please call your boss and tell him your logic, I’m sure he would love to give you a token salary of 1$ a year and by your logic, you would accept this gladly. No? Please let us know how that one goes a few weeks from now when you have no food, no place to live or gf. Only because you don’t value your time doesn’t mean I must do the same. This is what you are suggesting as it’s a crazy though that people who want to create something should have the gull to actually want to make even just a little of their investment back by charging others for their works.

@Jason, my stuff is protected by copyright laws which are bound by international agreements around the world except for a few places. Yes, people will copy, but I’m not fanatical about these things so I don’t worry about it.

Nick, can you make available to everyone all your work files for the past … oh … ten years? I’m especially interested in the Mind Gym code and believe a few of my web developer friends would like to have it available to them. Can you point me to the download? I can’t seem to find it on your Tangerineworks website (http://www.tangerineworks.com).

Can you please explain how you can preach “Free information is an environmental conditionâ€¦ get used to it” while taking money to develop non-Free applications? Forgive me, but from my perspective this disconnect seems hypocritical. If you’re earning a living developing web site applications for clients who are protecting their investment by claiming intellectual property rights, are you not supporting the very thing you claim to despise? And are you not profiting from it?

-

Another thing, is the computer you’re using filled with computer chips whose development history and source files are freely available for review and independent fabrication? Funny thing, my nephew (who also is a “sharing” advocate) is an electrical engineer who works in the chip industry, yet the company for which he works doesn’t “share” the chip designs they develop. From my own work I have plenty of contacts in China who I’m sure would very much like to see the source files for his employer’s product, but the company is so secretive I’m afraid to ask lest they fear he might feel compelled to “share” the work he does with foreign chip manufacturers … even though that would likely put him and his co-workers out of work and he wouldn’t be able to buy things for his wife and child. But then, while he can breathlessly argue how he has a right to music, videos and other content, he’s doubtlessly intelligent enough to realize sharing the content he creates might land him and his family on the streets; or at least living a less privileged lifestyle (no sportscar, SUV, expensive hobbies, aso).

Anyway, if your computer *isn’t* filled with open source hardware, may I ask why you’re supporting companies who rely on intellectual property laws to turn a profit? Surely the communist systems with which the West so long competed – and which didn’t have intellectual property laws – have computer chip designs which are being updated, produced and shipped with computers given away for Free (or at least for the cost of the materials used to make them). Do you have a link to one of these cutting edge Free, open source, communist-system produced machines? I’d be interested in acquiring such a machine to see what kinds of applications it can run.

-

And btw, as to “This corporatist/copyright-cartelist line that musicians need to be motivated by money is a flat out lie”, forgive me if I disagree. I’ve been in contact with a number of well-known bands such as 16Volt. Some, like Die Warzau, are indeed not motivated by money… but they’re also unable to get a new album out for lack of funds.

Truth is, I was looking forward to a new Die Warzau release only to see the announced album scrapped and a few new songs mixed in with a bunch of old material sold as some kind of collection; apparently an effort to raise some of those funds the old-fashioned way. Or put food on the table. Don’t get me wrong, I like Jim Marcus, I think he’s extraordinarily talented, but his “I can’t charge for my digital music” attitude translates to “I have to work a day job to make a living and don’t have the time or money to create new material”. For anyone familiar with their critically-acclaimed album “Engine” (highly-recommended), this approach deprives us all of his talent. Personally, I wish he would take Amanda Palmer’s approach and demand something for his irretrievable, under-valued Time.

I mean, what’s wrong with being motivated by having enough money to pay the rent, put food on the table and clothes on your child’s back? What’s wrong with telling the wife, “I know it’s difficult and I’m sorry, but I have to practice with the band from 7pm-midnight every day for the next month and can’t help with the housework or the children; but I’ll make it all up to you when the band finally lands a contract and I can maybe make some decent money instead of the minimum wage I’m getting as a general laborer”? Is it so wrong to want a better life; to be able to at least hope there’s some kind of reward after all the practice, hard work, time away from family, and the rest?

I wonder how many Free-everything types could live in the world Ursula Le Guin describes in “The Dispossessed”. Not many, I’m betting.

I recently read John Bonham spent much of his time on tour with Led Zeppelin depressed and lonely because he missed his wife and child terribly. Some believe it’s what drove him to drink and drugs. When someone is tired of touring and desperate for his family, might not one reason they continue is for the financial well-being of the family who has endured so much? Is that not a possibility? I believe it is.

-

As a reminder, intellectual property pre-dates the “corporatist/copyright-cartelist” boogeyman. There wasn’t even a music industry when the concept took root in the West; barely a manufacturing sector in sight. So while I won’t argue over whether it’s been corrupted – it has – I can and will argue that the core concept has merit. And, by the way, I don’t recall anyone here supporting the odd notion of â€œWork once, get paid foreverâ€. That, as far as I’m concerned, is the boogeyman created to sabotage compromise and a re-writing of overbearing IP laws by an Entitlement crowd which refuses to acknowledge the benefits they themselves have enjoyed from a capitalist system employing intellectual property mechanisms.

Take a good look around you, Nick. The world in which you currently live is a product of an IP-based capitalist system. The music over which the citizens of wealthy countries protest is a luxury, not a right. Strip away the system and you China before they decided to employ capitalist methods, including the introduction of intellectual property laws. I visited China back then. Most Westerners couldn’t stomach what I saw, let alone give up their current lifestyles for their idealistic convictions. If you believe yourself an exception, I can probably put you in touch with people looking for help in Africa.

Let me just remind you here that patent means absolutely nothing if you don’t have means to enforce it. That’s how it works in reality.
In theory, yeah… if you get patent you should be protected for 14 (it depends) years… but good luck fighting large corporation who stole your idea.
That’s some serious lawyer fees – and they do not work for free (well, maybe they’ll take back end pay if the idea is pure genius and corporation was large and wealthy)
That said, if you can afford patent go get one.

Patenting system should be overhauled… it is inherently good idea, fair system – but which got corrupted in so many ways that now, it is useless.

So put your stuff out there for free – 99% of people will not pay for it at all, if it takes anything more than click or two. some iTunes-similar process may work.

It is multiple overlaid systems of delivery and payment that needs to work first – design comes last as content maker.
Then… some people will pay.

Cory Doctorow and I have exchanged words. During that process, a few supporters of his were surprised to learn his content is, in fact, controlled; he does not relinquish his intellectual property rights.

Alienology – completely agree; patenting is a good idea but its current implementation and execution benefits those with deep pockets. It most definitely needs an overhaul in most everyone’s opinion. Yet there it sits.

Reading thru all this – I am wondering why don’t we sit down and analyze something that’s right in front of our noses and it is MUCH bigger industry than product design – and that is fashion.
I mean, fashion items are objects, right? Designed by talented people, exist in 3d space, made out or real materials, some natural some hi-tech. A lot of it is done by true and tested old-fashioned methods – but some are done with cool digital machines.

So… what is the difference? I do not see much difference myself. Plus, “audience” for fashion “objects” is like 10x larger then for designed objects / furniture and gizmos like that. And probably it will remain that way.

Are fashion designers “dying” because of pirated stuff like record companies do? No, they aren’t. There sure is damage done to Vesace or Gucci by hardworking Vietnamese sweatshops – but they can take that any day. Please note they are at the TOP of the game.

So let me ask you (because I have no idea)… how come a lot of us simply do not go and buy cheap sewing machines and go cranking wild on some neat shirt or jacket? Well some people do… but not all that many. Why? I think because it is hard thing to do that. It is hard to make these objects yourself even if you have all plans and patterns available (for those of you from Europe – “Burda” magazine was and is trailblazer in this area).
To rip-off some neat fashion, all tools and most materials are already readily available, much cheaper than laser-cutters or 3D printers. Patterns are out there in abundance and even if they are not – it is fairly easy to reverse engineer one.
Yet, except massive Chinese or Turkish or Vietnamese ventures solely dedicated to re-create fake brands, you do not see so many “copies” of average stuff by up and coming designers… you knowâ€¦ wannabes, just like us.

Why?
1.) Most of the time nobody really cares about your design, it takes time to get any interest.
2.) I think because fashion / clothing “stuff” is so readily available everywhere, most people will simply not bother to copy. (BTW, stenciling a logo on a Chinese t-shirt is not really making a new piece of clothing).
3.) And people who do bother to try to copy are “our” kind of people – they most likely will go ahead and (after ripping off few pieces) – will create their own designs. So, like it or not, they will join the game (or go into business or large scale counterfeiting – but that’s another story)

In other words – I am not so much worried if average Joe makes a identical copy of my lamp. That guy will probably go to create cool stuff himself. I will rip him off as payback.
If companies like Ponoko can make some headway just by making our products readily available to larger audience – people will pay for that stuff, because they can’t really make it themselves. It just too much work, even if you have all ready to go.
There is a difference between downloading a movie and instantly watching it… and getting a lamp cut and waiting 10 days to get one. Even if you have laser cutter in the bedroom. Still it is 30 min wait, it smells bad, and you really do not know if your own materials will work out good.

Thus, I believe I need to be paid for stuff I design. Putting something on-line for free is OK â€“ but to think this must be a default way to some new economy is complete BS.
Like it or not â€“ money is measure or appreciation today in the world. That sucks, that needs to change â€“ but I seriously doubt it will change it we all offer all our stuff for free.
Not many people care now to pay for it â€“ even less people will care if is it free.
Please note > you first need to care about something, they maybe youâ€™ll pay for it.
At this stage we need to make people care, how we get paid is step No2 â€“ but youâ€™ll never get there, in design world, if you give it away for free. Maybe it will work for musicians â€“ but I doubt.
Thereâ€™s always exception to all this â€“ but I highly recommend not living a life by thinking youâ€™ll be new superstar. Chances are you wonâ€™t.

I am worried, though, that whole IP protection system will get so skewed that any incentive to innovate will be snuffed out right at the start.
It is OUR task now to try to figure out some framework that can work for independent designer and how that can work for groups of people.
And so, some solution is in re-working patent and copyright systems to be peer based real-time databases with multiple levels of sharing.
You know… some weird fusion of Creative Commons and distributed IP archiving and cataloging (think bittorrent but for knowledge) + one stop place to get things materialized (it’s year 2019 – Ponoko just acquired IKEA for 340 Billion Nigerian Nairas

Undoubtedly the current system needs an overhaul. Patents and copyright protection only works for those that can afford to sue an infringement. Creative Commons relies on the honesty of mankind. The reality is, if someone wants to steal your work they will, be it through sharing the design file or reverse engineering.

Assuming every design file made available online can be shared and therefore obtained for free, the question here is how do you monetize free? Models that exist today
- Hosting advertising â€“ Google, facebook etc
- Give away a free version, offer a paid upgrade or pro version.
- Use it to drive sales of your paid work â€“ Monty Python, Radiohead

Put a lot of free designs up, make a name for myself and then win some commission work. Those designs I want to keep mine, I will not release the design files but control the IP and manufacturing myself. It will be the only way to guarantee it remains mine.

I donâ€™t think the answer to this discussion will lie at either end of the spectrum but will exist somewhere in between with a combination of open and protected designs.

i could write books on this one as it’s one of my favourite topics, but for now just some random thoughts from my side

- I don’t think in the near future product piracy enhanced by digital fabrication will be an issue at all.

Digital fabrication as far as now is kind of a geek thing. There are a few precious objects like the bathsheba grossman quintrino lamp for materialized (http://tinyurl.com/ydrpcld) that might be worth being copied, but I really can’t imagine anybody purchasing a design on shapeways that’s not his own. Really, most of the things there I wouldn’t even want to have for free.

I guess it’s more or less the same for ponoko. A few things are cool, but its service is basically used to manufacture own design ideas.
(still it’s something different as lasercutting provides a good finish. 3d printing for the moment is just what it’s called: “(rapid) prototyping”)

It might be in a distant future there will be fabbers capable of producing a complex product with a high-quality touch and feel, but until it’s possible to print out something like an iphone (which of course will be a museum piece then) it’s gonna take a long time. By then the most important factor protecting product design (as well as fashion) from piracy will be quality. Nobody buys a fakeipod or even fake nike’s unless he’s not able to effort the original. So companies don’t loose money on this. Nike doesn’t even prosecute piracy in certain areas, as they know it’s boosting their business in the long run.

I guess a bigger problem then products being pirated will be everybody being capable of making his own products. I don’t assume it will put designers out of business, I rather expect the opposite*, but for sure it will create a lot of visual waste. *(probably these days are moregraphicdesigners employed then ever before, although even my dad has photoshop (and makes evil things with it) on his pc)

Music industry of course is affected by piracy more than anyone else. but they are still making money. a lot. they just had to change their strategies.drm, passwordprotection & all this stuff never works because it’s not suitable for the medium. I don’t stop buying books on amazon because i could print out an pdf of it. I want the book. Same with a record, I buy them because I want a physical object and not a thumbnail artwork to view on myipod (afterwards I download the mp3 illegally although I already bought the music). I spend money for things that give me a physical or other unique value. When I can copy something and the result I get is 1:1 the same as the original, I’ll go for the copy unless the original can give me some additional value.

When I wrote my thesis about digital fabrication I wanted to create a platform like ponoko first, until I found out it’s there already. So I was wondering what could be an adequate product idea for digitally fabricated goods. Digital fabrication is still expensive, so it had to besth. people are willing to pay money for. The main advantage of digital fabrication compared to mass production is it’s flexibility . 100 same pieces don’t cost more than 100 varying pieces the same size. So I decided to make customized jewelry. As I charge for the customization, it’s no problem if those files appear on a torrent site, as they are worthless to anybody else. (unless somebody rips off the whole idea including the process which happened to me but still gave me some benefit regarding the publicity i got from this)

That’s just one possibility to make use of the advantages provided by digital production. Of course not everything will be great for designers regarding thelongtail, culture of free etc., but for sure is, it stays exciting!

And for what it’s worth, I have another project waiting in the wings if this one doesn’t move forward. It’s similar in some ways, but very different in others. I’d rather see this one funded since it might provide a test case from which we could learn, but if not, I’ll take what I’ve already learned and try to apply that to the next effort.

-

David, with regard to “I guess a bigger problem then products being pirated will be everybody being capable of making his own products”, my Future Imperfect “Caveat Emptor” post on Futurismic explained how things could go very wrong in a world where everyone can create their own (often unsafe) products. I suspect I’ll be around to see a few lawsuits.

We tend to think of IP and RP in the sense of today’s current technology. of course nothing is possible if only what is around today is what we’re doomed to in the future, but in reality…

We have no idea of the potential role RP will play in our lives in the future.

Forget that it’s even RP, or that download site and ala carte pricing is the same… even in the standard 5 year from now… or now… or now.

Who’s to say, you won’t be able to have products ‘flash-formed’ in a matfab room off your garage one day, with the dna or fingerprint of the designer spread across every fiber. And, with Fabfirms set up to help anyone ‘PR’ their products.

We won’t be able to stop all the baddies, just like you can’t stop someone grabbing a branch, sharpening it and killing every dog on the block, but then again, who knows where shape/material/intent recognition tech will be.

Watch CSven’s Toasthed project. First I’ve seen of this type of venture into open design IP.

A citation is in place:
“Most of these “users” never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC) [...] Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid? [...] Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3Â­ man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?”
(Gates 1976)

A significant market for software only emerge after the introduction of the first affordable personal computer, Altair 8800. Bill Gates was afraid that he couldn’t make money with software. He’s now happy that he was wrong. He’s not as happy that competitors are successfully making software for free and profiting from services around it. And this is just one example of one competitive business model.

Despite losing some market share in a market that becomes disproportionately bigger when personal fabrication, there *must* be ways to earn a living. The traditional ways will of course have to compete with new ways that are invented. Earning money on production equipment, consumables, intermediating in a value chain (like 100K garages, CloudFab.com), offering subscriptions to your designs, hosting a design directory (Thingiverse.com), each of these can be the basis for a business model. And of course not every designer is also a business man (to the contrary, I would expect), 100K Garages (as an good example) will allow you to make money from selling products based on your CAD files.

@Erik who stated: “100K Garages (as an good example) will allow you to make money from selling products based on your CAD files.”

How? If the file is sent off to someone in the 100K Garages network, what prevents them from using the 3D file to create and sell product for themselves; or an overseas manufacturer from doing the same?

If the potential fabbers aren’t willing to spend money to develop the designs and 3D files – if they don’t value it and think nothing of simply taking it – who then pays for the original design? And who’s willing to do it for free under these circumstances?

Gates is a poor example, in my opinion. He didn’t have the internet and peer-to-peer filesharing networks to contend with when he started. He had a running start. That’s no longer the case.

ok after another few server errors wordpress told me it’s a duplicate comment, but i added some text. i don’t know if it was recieved or not…

please delete the last comment i send. there was some server error, and i didn’t realize the text in the clipboard was not finished yet…. cheers, dave

When talking about piracy for me the most fundamental questions is a philosophical one:

“Is it possible to own virtual goods”

physical property has the advantage you can actually ‘own’ it. The value results from the shortage of resources. Gold is not especially precious cause it’s such a cool metall but because it’s rare.
Owning something physical excludes others from having access to it. If I have an ipod I can’t split it in two an share it with a friend as it wont work anymore.
It’s different circumstances when it comes to the files saved on it. I can give them to my friend and still ‘own’ all my music. I just doubled property without loosing something. The exclusivity of goods dissapears as they become virtual.

You guys might know the famous qoute from Thomas Jefferson (who developed the US patent system):
â€œHe who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction
himself without lessening mine; as he who lights
his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening
me.â€

This massive change in the perception of property is neither good nor evil. On the one hand it enables the whole internet to work on the other it faces a lot of industries with major problems.
Regressive approaches like DRM are doomed to fail as they utilize methods not suitable to the changed conditions.
So how to deal with it?
I don’t know the answer (yet), but there will be appropriate solutions.
Music indusrty is still making (a lot of) money and so will the designers (ok, maybe not a lot, though)

@duann if I’ll find the time I might translate the
theoretical part of my thesis. As you are involved in this stuff it might be nothing new for you. I just took look at theories like the long tail and how digitalization will affect our lives as industrial designers.
Anyway you can check out the physical results here: http://jewelry.davidbizer.com

please delete the last comment i send. there were some server error, and i didn’t realize the text in the clipboard was not finished yet…. cheers, dave

When talking about piracy for me the most fundamental questions is a philosophical one:

“Is it possible to own virtual goods”

physical property has the advantage you can actually ‘own’ it. The value results from the shortage of resources. Gold is not especially precious cause it’s such a cool metall but because it’s rare.
Owning something physical excludes others from having access to it. If I have an ipod I can’t split it in two an share it with a friend as it wont work anymore.
It’s different circumstances when it comes to the files saved on it. I can give them to my friend and still ‘own’ all my music. I just doubled property without loosing something. The exclusivity of goods dissapears as they become virtual.

You guys might know the famous qoute from Thomas Jefferson (who developed the US patent system):
â€œHe who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction
himself without lessening mine; as he who lights
his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening
me.â€

This massive change in the perception of property is neither good nor evil. On the one hand it enables the whole internet to work on the other it faces a lot of industries with major problems.
Regressive approaches like DRM are doomed to fail as they utilize methods not suitable to the changed conditions.
So how to deal with it?
I don’t know the answer (yet), but there will be appropriate solutions.
Music indusrty is still making (a lot of) money and so will the designers (ok, maybe not a lot, though)

@duann if I’ll find the time I might translate the
theoretical part of my thesis. As you are involved in this stuff it might be nothing new for you. I just took look at theories like the long tail and how digitalization will affect our lives as industrial designers.
Anyway you can check out the physical results here: http://jewelry.davidbizer.com

[...] not your problem, obscurity is”. We talked a while back about what is going to happen when product design files start to appear on Pirate Bay and there was alot of discussion going back and forth with many references to what the ‘music [...]